Leviticus 2
PATevening sacrifice, there is no frankincense appointed; but a certain quantity of wine, which perhaps was instead of it (having a fragrant smell), and was not required in the offering here mentioned. Both these were common in th6 sacrifices of the gentiles, as appears by this single passage in Ovid. lib. v. de Tristibus, Elcg. 5. " Da mihi thura, puer, pingues facientia flammas, Quodque pio fusum stridat in ighe merum."
Leviticus 2:1
JxND when any will offer a meat-offering unto the Lord. Here is a merciful provision for those, who were neither able to offer beasts of any sort, nor birds, whomGod ordered to bring meal,(as was observed before on the first chapter, ver. 14.) which was called in the Hebrew language mincah, and by us translated a meat-offering: for it was a korban, or gift, aswoll as the foregoing, though of a lower sort. And R. Levi Barzelonita thinks this sort of mean present (as wo may call it) had the name of mincah, because such offerings were very often merely voluntary; from whence whatsoever is not due among men from another is called mincah, a gift. Some of which were constant and stated, and also of a determinate quantity; being an appendix to the daily burnt-sacrifice, morning and evening, as we read Exod. xxix. 3S, 39, &c. But these here spoken of were voluntary, when any man’s devotion inclined him to acknowledge God, and implore his Divine blessing. And no certain quantity was prescribed; only the Jews say, not less than an ephah was accepted, but as much more as they pleased.. See Dr. Outram in his excellent book Do Sacrifices, p. 90. His offering shall be of fine flour.] viz. Of wheat-flour. For all the offerings of this kind, whether for the whole congregation, or particular men, were of pure wheat-flour, sifted from the bran; except only the omer of first-fruits of their harvest, (xxiii. 13, 14.) and that which was called the mincha of jecUpmy, (Numb. v. 15.) which were of barley. Of these voluntary offerings there were five sorts, as appears by this chapter: for they were either of raw meal (mentioned in this verse), or meal made into cakes, baked in an oven, (which was of two sorts, ver. 4.) or baked in a pan, (ver. 5.) or in a frying-pan, (ver. 7.) The first of which was the most ancient, as appears from Gen. iv. 3. and from what the heathen say of it; particularly Plato, lib. vi. de Legibus, and Pliny, lib. xxx. Nat. Hist. cap. 5* where ho saith Nuraa ordered the Romans Deos fruge colere, &c. And Pausanias, in his Attica, tells us, in the porch of the most high Jupiter there was, an altar, where they did not offer the sacrifice of beasts, but only of fino flour. The same he repeats in his Arcadica, and says this was ordained by Cecrops, that they should sacrifice only irififiara zirix&pia, which the Athenians in his time called irlXavoi. And accordingly Triptolcmus, another of their most ancient lawgivers, enacted this as one of his principal laws, that they should worship their gods with the fruits of the earth. For these three laws of his, Porphyry saith, were preserved to his days, Tovug rtfiav, Otovg KapirdiQ ayaX- X«v,. Zwa fir) crivtcrSat: (lib. iv. irtpl Airox) to honour their parents, worship their gods with the fruits of the earth, and hurt no living creature. Which last St. Jerome (lib. ii.’ contra Jovin.) translates, not to eat flesh. • And he shall pour oil upon it.] Which ^Vas done to give this sort of offering a grateful relish, as Maimonides observes, par. iii. Moro Novochiin, cap. 4G. The heathen used oil in their sacrifices, but not mixed with flour; but poured upon the flesh of the beast that was sacrificed,’to make it burn the better upon the altar. So that of Virgil shews, (iEncid. yL) " Pinguc superquc oleum fundens ardentibus cxtis." And put frankincense thewon.] To make a sweet odour in the court of the tabernacle, which otherwise would have been offensive, by reason, of the flesh, that was burnt there daily, as the same Maimonides speaks in theplace beforenamed. When they came into, the land of Canaan, where they were required (Numb, xy. 2, 3, &c.) to take care that this mincah, or meat-offering, should attend, all the freewill-offerings of beasts, as well as, the daily morning and
Leviticus 2:2
And he shall bring it. In a silver dish, or of some other metal, (as R. Levi of Barcelona expounds it, Precept exvi.) wherein he delivered it to the priest, who carried it to the altar, and presented it to God by lifting it up over his head; and, as the Jews generally say, turning it about to all the four quarters of the AVorld, ill token that it xrhs offered to the Possessot of heaVen and of earth. To Aaron’s sons, the priests.] To one of them that mihis^ tered at the altar that day this offering was brought, as appears by the next words. And he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof.] As much as he could take up between his fingers, saith the forcnamed It. Levi. And of the oil thereof] Which was mingled, as I said before, with, the flour. Tfif h all the frankincense thereof] None of which was to bo reserved for the priest’s own use; but entirely burnt upon the altar. Which was contrary to the way of the* gentiles, who called frankincense 7rpo<r#tXe<narov rote ZtcZey (as Diodorus Siculus speaks, lib. ii.) a thing most beloved of the gods, but yet offered only so much as they could take up with two fingers, or, as others say, three. (See Cupcnis’s Apotheosis Homeri, p. 74, &e.) And the priest shall burn the memorial thereof upon the altar.] As a grateful acknowledgment unto God, that they held all they possessed of him their sovereign Lord; whdm they supplicated also hereby, that he would still be mindful of them, that is, be gracious to them. For this offering seems to have something of the nature of a holocaust, or whole burnt-offering: though others will have it to bo an expiatory sacrifice, because part of it was eaten by the priests. But it being said in the next words, to bo an offering made by fire, (which is the phrase for a whole burntoffering, in the foregoing chapter, ver. 9. 13. 17.) I take the other to be the truer. Of a sweet savour unto the Lord.] The very same being said of this sort of offering, which is of the foregoing, that was more chargeable, (i. 9. 13. 17.) Pr&copi’us Gaz&us had great reason here to observe (which cann&t be too oft repeated), " that true piety is not demonstrated by the greatness of its presents. The way of piety is bpen and cosy unto all: for God’s commandment is exceeding broad. And he that maketh the smallest signification of it, if it be sincere, differs nothing from him, who shews it by the largest gifts," &c. So vain wefe tho reasonings of tho heathen, who disputed which were the most acceptable sacrifices to their gods, those df living cfeatnffcs, or df things inanimate. Julian contended that ftfit&T£pd fwv aty^wv lark ra ifvpvx a > & c * the sacrifices of livtntf Creatures were more esteemed, than of those Without life; because they were nearer of kin to the living God, and tht Ati*> thor of life. But his great doctors, Pythagoras and Porphyria (as St. Cyril observes, lib. x. contra Julianum), condemned the£e sacrifices of beasts, as hateful to their gods; who they fancied were pleased only with those that were made ha KdpirCov koI Xtj3avwrov, of fruits of ihe^ earth, and of frankincense. But they fright have learnt! from Moses, if they had pleased (Julian and Porphyry being acquainted with his books), that these things werfr alike acceptable, God having respect to the mind of him that offered, not to his gifts.
Leviticus 2:3
And the remnant of the metit-dpring Sliall be Aaron’s and his sons?. To be eaten by them. But that meat-offerihg which was offered for the priests thetnsclves, was to be wholly burnt, and no part eaten, (vi. 22, 23;) ft is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.] Nothing is more kno\vn than the distinction which 1 the Jews make betv/een things niosi holy and* the lighter holy things (as their phrase ife), whifch I took notice 6f be-’ fore. Hie abort holy were such, a$ rioneSvhatsbever migtft* eat of; or none but the priests, and the sons of priests; 1 and that only in the sanctuary, and no where else: (see vi.’ 16. 26.) such were all whole burnt-offerings, all the sin-’ offerings, and all the peace-offerings for the whole congregation. The lighter holy things’ were such, as might be eaten by those who were not priests, in any place within the city of Jerusalem (to which their camp now answered), and such \tefe alt the peace-offerings of particular persons, the paschal lamb, the tenth and the firstlings of cattle.
Leviticus 2:4
And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baken in the oven. This is the first sort of baked minchas, for the preparing of which there was an oven in the court of the tabernacle, as afterward there was in the court of the temple, (1 Chron. xxiii. 28, 29. Ezek. xlvi. 20.) It shall be unleavened calces of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed tvith oil.] If the cakes w£re thick, then the oil w: as kneaded together with them: but if they were thin (like a wafer) then it was only spread upon it, before it was baked, (sec Exod. xxix. 2.) or, as some will have it, after it came out of the oven. Concerning its being unleavened, see below, ver. 11.
Leviticus 2:5
And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in a pan. Or in a flat plate, as we translate it in the margin. For Maimonides says, this was the difference between, wfcicabath (which is the Hebrew word in this place) and war-’ chesheth, that the former was vl pan or plate without any* rim about it; and thfc other had one, as our frying-pans have. And so Abarbincl, in his preface to this book, observes out of Jarchi, that there was a vessel in the temple, which was only flat and brOad, but had no rising on tho sides of it! so that the oil being poured upon it, when it was set oh the fire, ran down and increased the flame, and made the cake hard. It shall be of fine flour uiiledvened, mingled with oil.] This sort of cake seems to have been both kneaded with oil, and to have had oil also poured upon it, after it w&s laid upon the plate.
Leviticus 2:6
TlioushUlt part it in pieces, &c. This, according tb Abaibinel; was done as it lay baking upon the plate. Or, if this division was made after it was taken off, 1,hc reason wag the same; befcause part of it was to be given to God, and the rest’ to the priests*. And pour oil thereon.] Upon the pieces; that they might by this new addition of fresh oil be made more savoury. Microsoft ® 2Y2 [chap. ii. It is a meat-offering.] And therefore to bo eaten with oil, (ver. 1.)
Leviticus 2:7
And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in the frying-pan. This vessel was not flat, but deep, (as Abarbiucl observes, see ver. 5.) because that which was baked in it was moist and fluid. It shall be made of fine flour with oil.] The oil was not kneaded with this sort of mincha, but put into the pan, so that it mixed with the flour; which might be shaken and moved up and down, as things are which arc baken in liquors. So Abarbincl’s words are in his preface to this book.
Leviticus 2:8
And thou shalt bring the meat-offering that is made of these things unto the Lord, &c. This relates to all the baked meat-offerings beforementioned, which were to be brought to tho Lord at his house, and there presented to the priest; who was to bring them to the altar, when they were prepared as before directed. (See ver. I, 2.) And this variety of minchas was allowed, that the table of the Lord (L e. the altar) might be furnished, and his ministers that waited on him entertained with all sorts of provisions.
Leviticus 2:9
And the priest shall take from the meat-offering a memorial thereof. A part of the cake (of whatsoever sort it was) was separated from the rest of the Lord’s portion; to whom it was offered as an acknowledgment of his supreme dominion over them, and in commemoration of his goodness to them. And shall burn it upon the altar.] Before the other parts were eaten by the priests; as was directed before about the fine flour, (ver. 2.) It is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.] See ver. 2.''
Leviticus 2:10
And that which is left of the meat-offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’, &c. All this verse has been explained, ver. 3. *
Leviticus 2:11
A T o meat-offering which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven. These words [which ye shall bring unto the Lord] seem to have a peculiar emphasis in this place; importing, that no meat-offering, part of which was offered upon God’s altar, should be leavened. For no part of that leavened bread which was offered in eucharistical sacrifices, (vii. 13.) nor the two loaves offered in the feast of Pentecost (which some mistake for an exception to this precept), were offered upon the altar, but given entirely to the priests, as their portion. Made with leaven.] There are many moral reasons given, both by Jewish and Christian writers, why none of the cakes beforementioned should have any leaven in them, which I shall not here set down. There is some probability in their opinion, who think this was ordered to refresh their memory, by putting thera in mind of their deliverance out of Egypt. But Maimonidcs seems to me to have given the best account of this, in his More Ncvochim, (par. iii. cap. 46.) where ho saith, God prohibited this to root out the idolatrous customs in those days, as he found in the books of the Zabii, who offered to their gods no bread but leavened. Next to this, the account which Abarbinel gives of it is not to. be disregarded, who thinks it was forbidden, because* it would have made delay, if they had waited at the tabernacle till the fermentation was perfected. For ye shall bum no leaven, ^or any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire.] Neither mixed with bread, nor alone by themselves. For honey was a kind of leaven, and it is certain was used by the heathen in their religious riles: as appears not only from Maimonidcs (who tells us in the place forcnamed, that they chose sweet things for their offerings, and anointed their sacrifices with honey), but from a great number of other authors, who make mention of it: particularly Plato, who saith, (in his de Legibus vi.) that anciently men did not sacrifice living creatures, but only fine flour, koL fiiXm icap-trot SzSzvfitvoi, and fruits moistened with honey. And so Phylarchus tells us, (in Athcnaeus’s Deipnos. lib. xv.) that the Greeks sacrificed honey to the sun (which was the great God among tho gentiles) but poured no wine upon his altars. Which Polemon (in Suidis) calls Nrj^oAwv Svoiav, a sober sacrifice; because there was no wine in it, but honey and water mixed together. Nay, there was scarce any god among the heathen to whom honey was not offered, as Bochartus hath shewn at large in his Hierozoiconipar. ii. lib. iv. cap. 12., But one testimony may serve for all, which is from Pausanias (in his Eliaca), where, having reckoned up at least fifty altars in the temple of Jupiter Olympius unto several deities, and some of them common to them all, he saith, they sacrificed upon every one of them once a month, after an ancient manner (apxdiov nva tqottov), frankincense and wheat mingled with homy. Which being so common and ancient a thing among the gentiles in their idolatrous worship, was the reason,, it is likely, that God forbade it to be used in his sacrifices. And under the name of honey, the Jews think figs and dates, and all other sweet fruits, are comprehended. For the famous composition among the Egyptians called Kixpi, which was burnt every day, morning and evening, on their altars, consisted of such things, as well as of myrrh, calamus, and cardamum. So Plutarch tells us (in his book de Iside et Osir.) and mentions honey in the first place, with w r ine and raisins: To plv Kv
Leviticus 2:12
As for the oblatio7i of tlie first-fruits, ye shall offer them unto the Lord, but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour. There were several sorts of firstfruits, (as I observed Exod. xxiii. 19.) That which is here * spoken of was of the corn unground, only a little parched at the fire, which was to be presented unto God; but not burnt on the altar, because they belonged to the priests.
Leviticus 2:13
And every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt. All the forenamed minchas, which were korbans (as they are often here called), were to be thus seasoned, because salt was a thing never wanting at any table; and all meat is unsavoury without it. Neitlier shalt thou suffer tlie salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy mealofferings.] It is called the salt of the covenant of God, as some think, because required by this law, which they covenanted with God to observe, as much as to offer sacrifices; which were not acceptable without salt, as appears from the repetition of it three times in this one verse. But there is a plainer reason than this, which is, that the sacrifices being God s feasts, and they that did partake of them being his guests, who did in a manner cat and drink with him at his table; the salt that was cast upon all sacrifices (as appears by tho words following) is called the salt of the covenant, to sig- Microsoft ® CHAP. II.] UPON LEVITICUS. nify, that as men were wont to make covenants by eating and drinking together (where salt is never wanting at their tables, but a necessary appendix at every least), so God by these sacrifices, and the feasts upon them, did ratify and confirm his covenant with those that did partake of them. For salt, as is commonly observed, being a constant concomitant of all feasts, and covenants being made by eating and drinking at the same table, where salt was ever used; thence salt itself was counted by the ancients to be the symbol of friendship, and proverbially used among the Greeks to express it. By which other places may be explained, about which some have bestowed vain labour, Numb, xxiii. 19. 2 Chron. xiii. 5. where the same words are used, but inverted; it* being called a covenant of salt (instead of the salt of (he covenant), because covenants, as I said, were established by eating together, where salt is never wanting. With all thine offerings thou slutlt offer salt.’] Not only with the minchas, or meat-offerings, mentioned in this chapter, but with all other sacrifices whatsoever. Which is so solemnly enjoined (as Maimonides says in the place beforenaraed), because the heathen did not use any salt in their sacrifices. Which is not unreasonable to think, since honey (with which salt doth not well agree) w r as in such, constant use among them. And therefore, saith he, God prohibited us to offer leaven or honey, and commanded us, with great seriousness, to use salt in all our sacrifices. That is, as R. Levi of Barcelona explains it, (Praecept. cxvi.) the flesh of all sacrifices was to be salted; and the meal of all minchas. For which he gives these two reasons; because nothing is grateful to the palate without salt; which also preserves things from corruption, as the sacrifices did their souls from perishing. Abarbincl saith the same. And therefore, whatsoever the custom might be in anoicnt time among the heathen, in after-ages they learned from Moses to use it in all their sacrifices: as appears from Pliny and Ovid (and many other authors), the first of which says, that salt was so necessary,* that no sacrifices were offered sine mola salsa: which every one knows the Greeks called ovXac and ovXox^rag. And, among the Jews, this salt was not brought by him that offered the sacrifice, but was provided at the public charge; thorc being a chamber in the court of the temple (as we read in Middoth, cap. 5. sect. 2.) called the chamber of salt. Which was one of the three rooms on the north side of the court (as there were three others on tho south side, for other uses), where the flesh of the sacrifices was powdered, as the minchas were seasoned at the very altar. And this was so necessary, that though a sacrifice was not looked upon as null, if the priest neglected to salt it; yet the want of it in the minchas (as the Hebrew doctors say) made them void; because it is here so expressly required in this verse, Thou shall not suffer the salt of tjie covenant of thy God to be lacking in thy meat-offering. And whosoever offered any sacrifice without salt, or wath honey or leaven, was beaten, as Mr. Seldcn observes, lib. ii. dc Synedr. cap. 13. • Vcr. 14. And if thou offer a meat-offering of thy firstfruits unto the Lord, thou shalt offer for thy meat-offering, &a] This is very different from the oblation of first-fruits mentioned vcr. 12. For there they are called resith, which signifies the first-fruits at harvest-time: but here bichurim, which properly imports the first ripe fruits, before the rest were ready. And therefore the manner of their oblation was different from the former, which follows in the conclusion of this verse. And first he describes what he means by the first-fruits, which he calls abib, L e. full ears of corn, but as yet green and moist: which he saith therefore in the next place must be dried by the fire; and then bruised and beaten in a mortar, or with a mill: and they were to be brought out of the richest or fattest of their fields: for so the last words seem to signify garesh carmel (which w r e translate corn beaten out of full ears), for carmel sometimes signifies a fruitful field, (Isa. xxxii. 15.) and therefore may very well be thought in this place to import, the largest ears of tender corn. And the intention of its contusion seems to have been, that it might be reduced into flour; as it might easily be, after it had been dried by the’fire. And therefore differed from that meat-offering mentioned ver. 1. only in this; that the former was flour of old corn, this of new: and that was fine flour sifted from the bran; this had nothing taken out of it, but remained as it came from the mortar or the mill. And so the LXX. seem to have understood it. There are those, indeed, who think it was only thrashed out of the husk, and so offered; and fancy also that from this word geresh, the goddess called Ceres had her name among the gentiles. Which last conceit is the stranger/since they endeavour to have it thought that the Jews derived this custom of offering first-fruits from the gentiles; and not the gentiles from the Jews. Whereas the gentiles had no such custom, that I can find, as this, to offer the first-fruits of green corn; but only the first-fruits of their harvest, which they called novas fntges: of which the Romans thought it unlawful to taste, " antequam sacerdotes primitias libassent," before the priests had offered the first-fruits, as Pliny tells us, lib. xviii. cap. 2. and Censorinus saith the same, cap. 1. de Die Natali. Or if they did offer any first-fruits before corn was ripe, they boiled them in a pot; but did not roast them in the fire, as is here directed. For so Hesychius seems to say, that in the feast called Oapy((Xta (which was in the month that answers to our April), they offered rac aVapx«c r&v <paivofx(- vb)v, Kal TreptKoixtZovcn, the first-fruits that appeared out of the ground, which they carried about, i. e. in pots, as other authors tell us. And Hesychius himself saith, that Gapya- Xoc signified a pot full of sacred decoction.
Leviticus 2:15
And thou shalt put oil upon it, &c. See ver. i.v
Leviticus 2:16
And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, pari of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil, and all the frankincense. All tho rest that was not burnt was the priest’s portion, except the frankincense, which is here ordered to* be entirely offered to God, (see ver. 2.) and made this, and such-like offerings, be called an offering of a sweet savour* unto the Lord, vcr. 2. 9. 12. It is an offering made by fire unto the Lord.] See upon ver. 9.